tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
IOW read the gospels for they tell of Christ.
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
IOW read the gospels for they tell of Christ.
The earliest sources state Jesus was a resurrecting, transfiguring, water walking son of a God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and God's own son whose accounts are implausible.
Rationally, the earliest sources [dated to the 2nd century or later] depict Jesus as a myth/fiction character.
Jesus is a myth/fiction character until actual historical data can be found.
None has been found for at least 1800 years.
Essentially, the HJ argument was ALWAYS based on Faith, assumptions and imagination--never actual contemporary historical data.
No they're not. No sane person believes that Mark, Paul, or the Synoptic Sayings Source are products of "later" than the second century. You are dreaming.
Well we certainly do not have any 1st century gospels or letters. So if any of those did exist in the first century then nobody knows what they might have said.
The existing copies that are relatively complete and relatively readable, typically date from 4th to 6th century and later for the gospels, and perhaps 200AD for Paul's writing in P46.
Those are centuries after the supposed lifetime of Jesus. And we cannot know what may have been written in any non-existent earlier copies.
But your source of belief in Jesus is the bible. You are claiming that the bible is a reliable source of historical fact in what says about Jesus. And that is manifestly & certainly untrue.
You have all these years and all your many hundreds of posts, and all you can say for your belief in Jesus is that you rely on the holy bible.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Your willingness to brand others as insane does not help your argument.
Again, you display intellectual dishonesty, desperation or hullucination
There are no NT manuscripts of any book or epistle dated to 50-60 CE.
The earliest NT manuscripts are dated to the 2nd century or later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri
In addition, no author for any book or epistle of the NT claimed that it was composed c 50-60 CE.
The earliest NT manuscripts Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46 state Jesus was an ascending, resurrecting, transfiguring, water walking son of a God, the Lord from heaven, born of a Ghost without a human father and God Creator.
The Jesus of the earliest NT manuscripts was a myth/fiction character.
Last edited:
That's right.
That's right.
That's right. Except that Matthew, Luke and John all also contain sources that state he had a human father. And Mark says nothing about a physical ghost father.
Is that the same as the earliest NT writings?
dejudge said:
Your statement is contradictory, void of logic or shows that the NT is not historically credible.
If it is right that NT Jesus is described as AN ASCENDINDING, resurrecting, transfiguring, water walking Son of a God, the Lord from heaven, the son of a Ghost without a human father then your statement that he had a human father is wrong.
You very well know the myth/fiction fables in the Gospels--Joseph TOOK Mary as his wife AFTER she was FOUND WITH CHILD by a Ghost.
Joseph of the seed of David became the ADOPTED Father of the Ghost's child who was named Jesus in the myth/fiction fables called Gospels
You cannot alter the Jesus story now--it is too late.
The Gospels and Pauline Corpus were used in antiquity to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].
Your invented 21st century fiction story about Jesus and Paul is not plausible.
Who wrote the gospel of Mathew? Who wrote g-Luke? And g-John? Can you tell us how reliable those writers were and how they knew about Jesus?
Who told the writer of g-Mathew that Jesus had a human father?
How reliable were the informants who told any of the gospel writers anything about any messiah?
More over when in the 70-130 CE where the canonal gospels first written and was there an editorial fiddling with them? Why is gThomas nothing but the sayings of Jesus with NO word on any events in his life?
Mark 1:1Craig B said:
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ
Who is the father of Jesus, if not God, theos above? Mark explicitly identifies God (understood to be God senior, aka YHWH), represented by abbreviations, nomina sacra, and elsewhere, in the gospels, one encounters Pneuma, spirit, (also a constituent component of the triune deity) as providing paternal components of reproductive union.
Whether spirit, or "God", it is clear that Mark's gospel identifies the paternal influence as a being, a presence, a physical entity, which is ghostly, unless you acknowledge that gods and spirits, even though invisible, and undetectable, do exist.
Last edited:
Yes, and there is nothing written by Walton in his 1653 masterpiece, regarding fly fishing.Maximara said:
The text addressing that subject, had been inserted by a friend, Thomas Barker. Maybe gThomas had been requested, similarly, to serve as an addendum, or an adjunct, to the main thrust of the four main gospels, just as Thomas Barker's text had been.
You've missed a lot of discussion of this, already posted.
Mk says nothing about virgins or holy ghosts. The expression Son of God is a messianic title borne by the Kings of Israel and Judah. It is applied to David and Solomon in the OT, as I remember, in Ps 2 and elsewhere, though we are given the names of the physical human fathers of these characters, Jesse and David. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1:3, 4
Like a Davidic King becoming a Son of God by being anointed as monarch.
Unfortunately Craig will say that whilst various gospels do say that God was the father, they also say that Joseph and Mary were the parents.
We know Craig will say that, because that's exactly what he has said (several times). And obviously he prefers to believe that Joseph and Mary were the actual human parents of a human Jesus (because, again, he keeps saying so).
For Craig it's obviously just a question of selecting which parts he wants to believe from any of the gospels. And apparently he is not concerned or discouraged by the fact that -
(a)those gospel sources are now known to have written fiction about Jesus in virtually every mention of him (e.g. the constant miracles, and the verbatim conversations etc.)
(b)that the gospel writers certainly never met anyone called Jesus and could only have been writing hearsay stories of the supernatural at best.
(c)that the gospel writers were all completely anonymous, so that their reliability and veracity could never be checked.
(d)that we now know that the gospel writers were taking their Jesus stories from various parts of OT scripture written centuries before.
(e)that the copies we are actually using for almost all such details about Jesus, typically date from the 4th-6th century and later, i.e. many centuries after the time of Jesus (any estimated earlier dates are only for fragments and poorly preserved partly illegible incomplete pages etc.).
But despite all of that, Craig still wants to offer the gospels as reliable and credible writing about a supernatural messiah of God who none of their hopelessly unreliable anonymous authors could possibly have ever known.
That’s not to say Jesus could not possibly have been real. He might have been. But it requires a far better evidential source than the manifestly untrue fiction of the gospels.
Again, you display intellectual dishonesty. gMark was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].
See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.
gMark says nothing about Joseph.
gMark says Jesus was the Son of God who WALKED on the sea, that he TRANSFIGURED and was RAISED from the dead.
gMark's Jesus is NOT HUMAN.
Only God is the admitted father of Jesus in gMark.
The Jesus character is a myth/fiction son of a God.
gMark is fiction/mythology.
gMark is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus with a human father.
The highlighted part dovetails into the Reductive-Triumphalist dynamic. Carrier lists the 12 "facts" about Jesus that, other of 7 or 8 as he said have no support except in the Gospels:
1) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
2) he was a Galilean who preached and healed
3) he called disciples and spoke of twelve of them
4) he confined his activity to Israel
5) he engaged in a controversy about the Temple
6) he was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Romans
7) his followers continued as an identifiable movements after his death
8) some Jews persecuted some members of this movement
9) Jesus Jesus was probably viewed as a prophet by the populace
10) he spoke of the kingdom of God
11) he criticized the ruling priests as part of the Temple controversy
12) he was crucified as 'king of the Jews' by the Romans
Carrier makes the same point Remsburg hinted at over 100 years previously: if the Gospels cannot be trusted on any facts then there is no reason to trust them on these particular ones.
As pointed out before other then a throw away line there is nothing in Paul's writings to suggest that anything related to Jesus is a recent event. All supposed early events are through revelation rather then actual eyewitness.
Last edited:
Utter nonsense. The very passage you quote alludes to the royal Davidic son of God idea.
Very Jewish. The Christ is the anointed Son of God. The King. The priest is saying Jesus claims to be that. In the story, Pilate concurs and puts a notice "King of the Jews" on the cross. Couldn't be clearer.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You believe this actually happened?
dejudge said:
Your "royal Davidic son of God idea" is absolutely void of logic.
A fiction character that was a Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water Walking Son of a God is NOT a figure of history with or without "a Davidic title".
Jesus of Nazareth, with or without a Davidic title, is still a fiction/myth character.
Craig B said:
What absolute non-sense you post the Jewish Messiah has not yet come up to this very day.
There is NO documented King of the Jews called Jesus of Nazareth outside the Fiction/Myth Fables of Apologetic sources.
In addition, you forgot to tell us if Jesus was very Jewish when he Transfigured, Walked on water and was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.
Is it VERY Jewish or historical to Transfigure?
Is it very Jewish or historical to Walk on water?
Is it very Jewish or historical to Resurrect on the third day?
No real Jew has ever WALKED on water, Transfigured and Resurrected as described in gMark.
Jesus of Nazareth in gMark is VERY MYTHOLOGICAL and VERY Fictional.
Jesus of Nazareth is VERY NON-HUMAN.
gMark was used by Christians of antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a Jesus with a human father]
See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.
Jesus is God of God in the gMark.
Jesus is MYTH/Fiction.
Last edited:
Why do you ask that? Please read my post. The "Son of God" concept is human messianic. In the story both the priest and Pilate concur that Jesus is a messianic King. Therefore in this passage invoked by dejudge, it is not true to suggest that "gMark's Jesus is not human", as gejudge claims.
This discussion is about "gMark's Jesus". I reply that "the very passage you quote alludes to the royal Davidic son of God idea." Which is human.
To sum up: dejudge says that Mark's Jesus is not human. I say on the contrary that Mark's Jesus is human.
- Status